To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is midday on Thursday 27 November 2025 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Tuesday 2 December 2025 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Wednesday 19 November 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following public issues were received:
Question from Ian Redman.
The core requirement under Section 151 is to ensure that the Council’s finances are handled: prudently, affordably, sustainably and lawfully with proper risk management.
These duties apply whenever public money is at risk, including when a Council lends money to a third party, especially a council-owned company like FuturePlaces.
The £8m working capital loan was approved with no deliverable repayment plan in place (4.6.1–4.6.4).
How did the CFO judge this loan to be prudent, affordable and sustainable when FuturePlaces had no guaranteed means to repay it?
Response:
The report to Cabinet and Council (22 June 2022 and 12 July 2022) set out the financial and legal implications, in paragraphs 40 to 57. In that report paragraph 48 stated:
The business plan from FuturePlaces as attached indicates that the £8m working capital loan facility can be repaid to the council. The current cashflow indicates the debt will peak as £5.3m in quarter 1 2023/24 reducing to nil by the end of 2026/27financial year.
The report also set out the financial risks and stated there may be future need for provisions to be made for potential losses, although no such provision was being made at that point.
Question 1 from Alex McKinstry.
5.10 of tonight's report considers the £100,000 Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) - a type of Covid support grant - obtained by FuturePlaces to fund a "city identity study". A few details are missing however. Can you confirm the date of the application for this ARG (paragraphs 5.10.2 - 5.10.4); the identity of whoever it was who signed the application form (ibid.); and the identity of the FuturePlaces representative who signed the grant acceptance letter of 8 December 2021 (paragraph 5.10.6)? I'll be content with the job title if it wasn't a senior officer, or a councillor, signing these documents.
Response:
The date of the application was 5 November 2021.
The identify of the applicant was the FuturePlaces Corporate Engagement Director.
The identity of the FuturePlaces representative who signed the grant acceptance letter was the Corporate Engagement Director, this was signed on the 8 December 2021.
Please note the terms Strategic Engagement Director and Corporate Engagement Director seem to have been used inter-changeably to describe the same post.
Question 2 from Alex McKinstry.
Once awarded, the £100,000 ARG was in fact paid to a separate company - 1HQ Ltd - who actually carried out the city identity study. However, paragraphs 5.10.11 and 5.10.13 suggest that overspending and VAT pushed the overall cost of this project up to £128,580, and that the excess £28,580 was covered by way of "match funding". Where did this match funding derive from; and if it was in fact FuturePlaces who provided the match funding, where did they get the money from?
Response:
Although £28,580 was described as match funding, the VAT element of this sum was in fact recoverable. The actual net (of VAT) spend was £107,150. The net cost of £7,150 above the £100,000 grant was paid for by FuturePlaces and was thus part of the FuturePlaces P&L account for 2021/22. Section 4.1.11 of the investigation report shows this in some more detail.
The report also goes on to show that ultimately the Council paid for all costs incurred by BCP FuturePlaces and in this specific case in 2021/22 from council revenue budgets (i.e. this spend was before the £8M working capital loan agreement).
Question 3 from Alex McKinstry.
Paragraph 6.3.11 contains the allegation that the shareholder representative "told FuturePlaces executive directors to keep reports in draft (to avoid them being subject to Freedom of Information requests)". If this allegation is true - and as far as I can see, it is only an allegation - it is truly shocking, as it suggests that the Council's most senior officer (then) was not only breaching Nolan Principles, but encouraging other senior figures to do likewise. For avoidance of doubt, was the Head of Audit ever made aware of any such practice - did it ever come up in Corporate Management Board meetings, for instance, or even in conversation - and as for the maker(s) of the allegation, have they cited any specific examples of this practice or provided any substantiating evidence? If so, can we have the fullest possible details?
Response:
The Head of Audit & Management Assurance (HAMA) has never heard of this as a deliberate practice or culture to avoid Freedom of Information request in BCP Council or predecessor councils. It has never come up in discussions or in Corporate Management Board meetings, when the HAMA was present.
The Head of Audit & Management Assurance is not a regular attendee of Corporate Management Board but as part of the investigation did specifically ask some standing members if it is a practice they have heard or witnessed. The response was this was not a deliberate practice or culture ever heard or witnessed.
Statement from Philip Gatrell
The investigation discloses governance weakness due to senior Officers’ failures. Members must therefore ensure “lessons learned” are actioned.
External audits cannot detect all significant failings. As this resident's public issues have identified over six years.
But for certain residents’ indefatigable input, this matter may have been consigned rapidly to history, notwithstanding consecutive Administrations’ overview.
Preceding an information request for FuturePlaces’ detailed accounts, I also emailed cautionary emphasis regarding statutory documents retention and the “Section 77” criminal offence of withholding records. Concerns increased during summer 2024 when information was released inordinately late.
Despite senior Officers’ awareness, an enquiring resident was misinformed at this Committee that FuturePlaces “management accounts” were unavailable following “council and company” staff departures. That misdirection was withdrawn later at the 17 October 2024 meeting. My precursory public issue notifying Members of the facts was however blocked as ineligible.
Internal audit clearly require additional resources enabling the full scope of duties.
Statement from Ian Redman:
When new leadership took office in May 2023, the warning signs were already flashing — yet no full reset was triggered.
· What was needed was an immediate, independent investigation into how a high-risk, high-cost venture had been allowed to operate with weak controls, vague commissioning, and no firm grip on public money.
· Instead, the council lost more precious years while governance gaps continued and officer-level failings went unchallenged.
· Political leadership cannot deliver accountability if it accepts assurances at face value; it must insist on evidence, documentation, and compliance with Financial Regulations.
· Crucially, the council should have confronted the officer failures that allowed processes to drift, controls to lapse, and public funds to be squandered.
· The public deserved decisive action in 2023, not delay.
Statement 1 from Alex McKinstry.
Suggested recommendations re 5 10 of tonight's report (Additional Restrictions Grant):
· That the "BCP City Panel" be investigated, by studying email traffic: there can't be too many emails containing the phrase "city panel". This was the panel that asked FuturePlaces to apply for a £100,000 grant for a "city identity study", and its members included the Ceuta Group, whose subsidiary was secretary to 1HQ - the company that ended up doing the study and receiving the grant. This may of course be a purely felicitous concatenation of circumstances. But I think it needs looking into;
· That no councillor / Council company sit on any "informal reference group" (such as the BCP City Panel) without this being declared as an ORI;
· That no councillor sit on any award-making body, such as the Additional Restrictions Grant assessment panel. The optics are terrible.
Statement 2 from Alex McKinstry:
Regarding the alleged keeping of documents in draft (paragraph 6 3 11); I'm amazed this is covered in just 25 words. Such a practice would not only have frustrated Freedom of Information requests. It would also have defeated the Council's entire scrutiny regime, as a "draft" is not classed as a document under the 2012 access to information regulations. I'm reminded of Cabinet - 9 February 2022 - where Opposition councillors asked to see a budget-related report prepared by KPMG; on 16 February, KPMG were asked to "update" the report in respect of interest rates; and then on 22 February, at full Council, the document was said to be "in draft" and not producible. The Committee should seek expert opinion on what a "draft document" actually comprises, and enquire into whether such practices are continuing, or continuing covertly.
Statement 3 from Alex McKinstry:
Looking forward, the Committee's identification of recruitment, and "stewardship", as matters for further inquiry, is spot-on. (You'll see from paragraph 5 9 1 that the company was seeking yet more stewardship funding, this time from Homes England.) Less satisfactory was this Committee's discussion of the office premises - which skipped the assertion, in 5 5 14, that Drew Mellor "certainly" knew the director of the rent-receiving company thanks to a homeless hub project dating back to 2021. Likewise suboptimal was the Committee's discussion of bonuses, which ignored the pellucid public statement on this matter and was prefaced with the words, "We're all agreed that some reserved matters didn't have to go to full Council"! I was aware of no such antecedent concord. I regret, therefore, that in my view, the Committee reached entirely the wrong conclusions in these two serious matters of inquiry.